Exhibitors Herald (Dec 1924-Mar 1925)

January 17, 1925 EXHIBITORS HERALD 27 FIRST ANNUAL DINNER of the Kansas City Film Board of Trade tendered to the salesmen of the distributor members. The gathering was held for the purpose of creating a more intimate acquaintanceship between the salesmen and managers. Clean selling, the work of the Film Board and arbitration were discussed by speakers. Bair, Through House Organ, Wins Support for Sunday Pictures (Continued from Page 19) problem facing those men that have no homes of their own but are nevertheless as essential to the welfare of the community as all others. Both general foremen of the Dennison shops expressed the opinion that they cannot see any harm in allowing the people to have a few hours set aside for clean, decent recreation, offsetting the lure of the green table and the blind tiger. Mr. H. J. Speck says: “I don’t think it’s fair to take such inconsequential privileges away from the people. I am old enough to enjoy the comforts of home, but if I wanted to go to a picture show on Sunday, and it were open. I’d sure go, and I know my boys are of the same opinion.” Mr. A. Lamberger says: “I surely believe in a decent, well behaved community; I have never expressed a sentiment pro or con, but I will say this: As long as people in charge of Sunday entertainments stick to their pledge to furnish clean programs not interfering with the church time, I believe it will be a decided improvement to present conditions.” We have a long list of merchants expressing their wish for something to happen to keep people from running out of town on Sunday with the consequent habit forming of doing likewise on weekdays. We said once before we do not resort to unfair methods to gain our aims and therefore we’ll not even make use of their statements since ultraradical reformers may use them for purposes detrimental to these people’s business. We do, however, intentionally invoke the wrath of the opposition to make us prove every statement we publish.—F. H. W. Editorially the State Theatre News says: In our last issue, advised by scores of our patrons, we expressed a request to be granted the privilege to exercise our own judgment regarding the way to spend Sunday. We told the community of their desire for an opportunity to spend a few hours on Sunday afternoon, at once recreational, restful and in no way conflicting with their own way of observing the Sabbath. We also obligingly told all readers just why their wishes should be respected precisely as in most other communities where fair play exists for either side. We did not intentionally antagonize any group or faction ; as a matter of fact, we wish to go on record that from the very start of this movement we offered to make every reasonable concession to the faction with possible or probably just imaginary grievances about their “Blue Sundays.” We wish to emphasize that we do this in a spirit of broadmindedness with which we will in a peaceful, sensible way obtain our aims, setting the example for people who obviously lack the right understanding. We fully agree to confine our programs to hours not interfering with the customary service hours. We invite ministers of any denomination or their committee to help select suitable Sunday programs for the afternoons. We will be very glad to debate in public with anyone or as many as wish to participate, the question why people who favor Sunday entertainment of a refined order should have their wishes respectedeven though they were in the minority — the same as those that do not care for them — -WHO ARE IN THE MINORITY! As yet, no one has advanced a substantial reason contrasting the request — there isn’t any I We found, as we expected a proclamation of the ministers union in the Evening Chronicle to the effect : “We oppose anything favoring Sunday motion picture entertainment.” We also expected their resolution to urge their congregation not to sign a petition in favor of it ; but we did not think that “the UKAS” would include a demand for withdrawal of signatures of an astonishingly large number of church members already affixed to the petition for the right to attend Sunday programs. It takes but very little study to draw one of two conclusions: first, the body issuing that statement must consider those members pledging their support to something they thought the community should have, too stupid or irresponsible; or they are not supposed to do anything without consent of sai4 body. As that it may be said in our case. We do not need to coerce anyone, most signers asked for our petition. If the opposing parties are so certain that the public does not want Sunday entertainment of 'a refined order — concerts and pictures — why the frantic efforts to solicit signatures to oppose any law favoring Sunday shows and to HIT THIS THING HARD. The simple and logical way would be to let the proposition kill itself by allowing the theatres to open FOR A TRIAL. If the people 3on’t want them they will quickly close them by withdrawing their patronage. It can, however, easily be proven that opposition has defeated itself wherever it was put to that test — fairly — without application of the strangulation system. There was a time, and we are glad it is some decades ago — when the mere mention of anything not favored by the synod was quickly silenced with the dungeon, the rope and the stake. Many poor innocent souls got a bitter taste of what a dreadful power some factions could wield while opposing anything not coming from their chambers. We said that was a good while ago, but that method would surely still be employed if the march of progress had not swept most of the cobwebs out of the majority of heads of the masses. Petitioning for a cause is an effective way to ascertain public sentiment — if conducted fair, but it becomes a questionable method in a manner described by an apparently sincere citizen, who told us he would have at least reserved his decision had the question been put to him in the direct unmistakable clear way we put it. He told us when he and all others present at a service was asked to raise his right hand if he did not favor Sunday pictures, he conscientiously did so — and the subsequent signing was then a foregone conclusion. He readily admitted though that we did not necessarily have to share his aversion. When we asked him was it fair, as long as we did not interfere with his point of view, for him to help dictate what we should or should not do, he frankly stated that was the least of his intention. READERS PLEASE CONTEMPLATE! Another statement we solicited from a prominent business and church man (we do not publish names without permission) was “I saw many pictures I considered better than some sermons I heard.” Wouldn’t go bad for any Sunday. On Sunday, Dec. 14th. the coincidence at the Grant theatre would indicate that some people are entirely wrong when shouting the public does not want Sunday shows ! On a mere printer’s error several hundred people turned out for a couple of hours harmless fun only to be disappointed, as the Chronicle said. If an apparently plain mistake in a newspaper can do that, all the proclamations in the world cannot make a person with a mind of his own believe that the people — except a special class who are perfectly at liberty to follow their own inclination— do not want them. So much for that. A Cincinnati Methodist Minister, Rev. Craig, evidently mixes logic with his calling, to which in part he attributes his singular success. In one of his recently published statements he says, “I do not believe that taking away harmless Sunday entertainments will solve the problem of Sabbath observance, for it cannot be legislated. When religion is made a law it loses its inspiration; it must come from the heart to be creative.” That sounds entirely different from : We oppose any law favoring Sunday shows and ‘“rhis thing must be hit hard.” What’s the terrible reason? We state once more, we only ask for a privilege enjoyed by most communities and to be let peacefully alone. We are therefore certainlysurprised to find that our insignificant request became a semi-political issue, engineered from the pulpit which the public forum, whose business it really is could quickly decide and in favor of the real majority who can thus express their opinion free from restriction measures. This idea should satisfy all concerned; it surely appeals to us. F H. W. It is hoped that the State theatre wins its fight for Sunday opening, but should it lose the management can be proud of the enterprising campaign wliich it has conducted. Loew St. Louis House Books on Open Market (Special to Exhibitors Herald) ST. LOUIS, MO., Jan. 6.— Mrs. Wallace Reid in person will appear at Loew’s State theatre in March in conjunction with the premier showing here of “Broken Laws.” This is the first non-Metro-Goldwyn picture to be purchased by the big St. Louis downtown picture palace. It is expected to have great bearing on the future policy of this first run house.